[edby]

Or perhaps the problem is the flight times themselves depend on the assumption that the earth is spherical? But what if Tom and I both set the timepieces of our choice as we board the plane together, and take the time at landing. Will we get a different result? Surely not. RE and FE watches should give identical results.

[inquisitive]

It's telling that Tom's argument was:

If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.

When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.

It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.

All measurements show a sphere, time for you to prove otherwise or keep silent.

[Tumeni]

It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere. Many of the youtube arguments are trying to show that a spherical coordinate system can make a sphere. It's circular reasoning.

Norwood, in the 1600s, recorded the length of one degree of arc/meridian at 110.72 kilometre. He did this by precisely measuring between London and York, and sighting to the Sun from each location. 

Picard used a different method, involving quadrants, pendulum clocks, zenith sectors, and telescopes. In 1669 he announced a measure of 110.46 kilometres.

In the 1700s, the French geodesic missions set out to Peru and Scandinavia, taking two separate measures, confirming the above figures.

Point of inquiry; When three different methods confirm the same figure, how many more methods do you need to confirm the figure as correct? 

Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways? 

[AATW]

It's telling that Tom's argument was:

If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.

When it's the result which demonstrates the model is correct. Or, more accurately, it gives confidence in that model.

It's geometrically a spherical coordinate system. Any distance recorded is done under the assumption of a sphere.

Correct. The distances are calculated assuming the earth is a sphere.
The times are not calculated using any assumption, they're just times.

Time = Distance / Speed, so
Distance = Time x Speed

So if the speed is constant then Distance and Time should be correlated.
You would expect airlines to have a roughly consistent cruising speed. Note the world "roughly". Not exactly but it should be close enough. And for longer flights the time for ascending and descent shouldn't have a big impact on the overall time.

So the question is whether there is correlation between the calculated distances and the times?
The graph shows there is. Not exactly - you would expect some variation because of slight differences in cruising speed, time taken taking off and landing and so on. It would be highly suspicious if there was an exact correlation.

But it's close enough to see there is some correlation.
And that gives confidence that the distances calculated are accurate.
And that gives confidence that the model used to calculate those distances, a model of the earth as a sphere, is correct.

The very thing that you're attacking - that the distances are calculated using a spherical model - is the exact point being made.

[edby]

The very thing that you're attacking - that the distances are calculated using a spherical model - is the exact point being made.

That's the main point, and is the misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up.

Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?

Same as on round earth. The 'one degree' is measured by astronomical instruments, sextants and so forth. The ground measurement is a combination of large tape measures (chains) and trigonometry.

You would expect airlines to have a roughly consistent cruising speed. Note the world "roughly". Not exactly but it should be close enough. And for longer flights the time for ascending and descent shouldn't have a big impact on the overall time.

I covered this in an earlier post, see chart below. You notice the average RE speed (red line) is lower for short times, but climbs up. This is surely the result of time taken to get to full speed, and back again.

The FE average speeds are somewhat different. They are always much faster for southern latitudes. I would have attributed it to pronounced jet streams in those regions, but I am puzzled why it doesn’t show up on the return journey. You would think they averaged out

[Tumeni]

Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?

Same as on round earth. The 'one degree' is measured by astronomical instruments, sextants and so forth. The ground measurement is a combination of large tape measures (chains) and trigonometry.

One degree measured around what point, though?

One degree of arc or meridian around the Earth is taken around the centre of the sphere, and the measurement of one degree is extrapolated from the measures of angles taken at the surface using various instruments. You don't measure one degree at the surface, you take the angles at various points between the measures, then calculate the length of one degree out of the 360 of the circumference.

If you measure some angles from the surface of a flat earth, how do you extrapolate those to give you one degree of arc or meridian? You have no arc. You have no meridian. You have no fixed point around which to make that arc.

[Westprog]

I don't know if it is possible to solve all of these problems.

- There is no FE map
- We can't rely on the distances to be accurate because Lat/Lon relies on spherical coordinates
- We can't rely on the flight times to be accurate

On top of all of the above it is also known that on international flights planes regularly use jet streams to quicker get to a destination.

https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=true



According to this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=vsodESrwdm4C&lpg=PA183&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22southern%20hemisphere%22%20%22miles%20per%20hour%22&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=50%20miles%20per%20hour&f=false

"Jet streams are ever-present, relatively narrow, streams of high-speed winds undulating around the Northern and Southern Hemispheres"

It's certainly the case that wind speed can affect travel times. However, note above (my italics) jet streams operate in both hemispheres. It seems implausible that pilots would make use of jet streams to reduce travel time in the Southern hemisphere and not use them in the North.

And it's an objection which can be cancelled out by using times to and from destinations. If the jet stream speeds up, say, London to New York, it should slow down New York to London.

[Westprog]

You have to understand that iamcpc is probably unique in Flat Earth circles in simultaneously holding (i) that distances in Google maps is a totally accurate representation of real distance across the Earth's surface and (ii) that the Earth's surface is flat.

From what I've seen, that isn't really a very unique perspective.

I think many FEs recognize that google maps and indeed google earth works very well to represent the locations and distances between places on Earth - at least any places near enough to drive between in our everyday experience.

From what I've seen, most FEs expect that we should be able to make a flat map with distances that perfectly match the distances reported by airlines and google earth. It is a rather abstract bit of geometry to understand that this cannot be possible, and I think many FEs are simply not willing to make this leap.

To mathematically prove the point is tricky, but it's not hard to visualise. If you have a set of distances between cities, it's possible to create a model, using blobs of modelling clay and straws cut to the right length. One can very quickly assemble a rough model. It becomes clear as soon as one puts the model together that one is not free to choose whatever shape one wishes. The distances between cities force one into only one shape. They will not permit a flat map. It cannot work.

It's of course entirely possible for _anyone_ to verify that flight distances as measured on the globe reflect, to a reasonable degree, flight times. This is not some secret mystery that we have to believe because of the Illuminati telling us. We know it because we now have access to air travel for ourselves. We know that the times advertised by the airlines reflect the actual times taken.

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations. There are a number of ways to go. There's variation in the speeds of different aircraft, there are wind patterns, there are delays due to weather - so how can any of this make any sense? It's just too unreliable. The airlines are all in on it - if the truth about the flat Earth were revealed then they'd be ruined. And so on.

[AATW]

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations.

Where it gets silly is when claims are made that planes don't know how fast they're going and that other ways of measuring distances across oceans like ships laying cables across the Atlantic aren't valid either because they don't know how much cable they've used.

[Tumeni]

Point of inquiry; how would you measure one degree of arc or meridian on a flat earth, anyways?

Same as on round earth. The 'one degree' is measured by astronomical instruments, sextants and so forth. The ground measurement is a combination of large tape measures (chains) and trigonometry.

One degree measured around what point, though?

One degree of arc or meridian around the Earth is taken around the centre of the sphere, and the measurement of one degree is extrapolated from the measures of angles taken at the surface using various instruments. You don't measure one degree at the surface, you take the angles at various points between the measures, then calculate the length of one degree out of the 360 of the circumference.

If you measure some angles from the surface of a flat earth, how do you extrapolate those to give you one degree of arc or meridian? You have no arc. You have no meridian. You have no fixed point around which to make that arc.

Norwood's method was to measure between two points on the surface (P1 and P2), which gave him the measured length of an arc. This was between London and York, approx. 175 miles, as the crow flies, or 281 kilometres. This is the definition of an arc -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(geometry) 

At the start and finish, on the same day of the year, he sighted the angle to the Sun (green lines out to right). This gave him two different sighting angles which, using trigonometry, allowed him to calculate the angle he had subtended by going from P1 to P2 (the angle represented by two red dots). The measures at the surface do not measure one degree of meridian directly, nor any other number of degrees of meridian.

This 'two red dot' angle in degrees, or fractions of a degree, can be used in proportion to one degree, and applied to the length of the measured arc, to determine the length of one degree of arc.

If the measured arc is 175 miles, and the angle is derived as exactly 2 degrees, the length of one degree of arc is 175/2, or 87.5 miles.

If one degree = X miles/km, then the circumference of the Earth is X times 360.

Later confirmation of Norwood's figure, by others using different methods, in different locations, at different times of year, shows the method to be sound.

Flat Earth has no relevant angle at the two red dots.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PjCnkysmO20C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=norwood+1635+difference+of+latitudes+2+degrees+28+minutes&source=bl&ots=CSkLZtk3W7&sig=LdnUNTkXSHTSqUPV3U3t9VyUUoc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk-PiEkbjcAhXMB8AKHXikBG8Q6AEIVzAL#v=onepage&q=norwood%201635%20difference%20of%20latitudes%202%20degrees%2028%20minutes&f=false

[iamcpc]

What "FE" map are you using? The monopole model is for illustration purposes only and, in fact, was replaced by our predecessor society with a featureless two pole version in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole.

The problem is the same on all non infinite repeating flat plane maps

There is no map.

Yes there is. The 2d version of the google earth maps represents a flat infinite repeating plane.

[TomInAustin]

It's not the same.

(i) I collected the data myself (ii) there are many more data points (more than 350 in all) (iii) I used the proper formula to compute the RE predicted distance between the locations. The other experimenter used a piece of string and a globe, from memory.

If the data is based on the spherical coordinate system of Latitude and Longitude, which you admit is based on the idea that the earth is a sphere, then the results are invalid until you can demonstrate that the system and model is correct.

You have it backwards.  This is proof the system and model are correct.  Nebulous arguments about aircraft speed and distances do not hold up without proof.

[TomInAustin]

An interesting quote:

http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/airlines-airports/why-flights-take-longer

“Surprisingly, flight time is calculated from when the aircraft releases the parking brake (on push back) to when it sets the brake on arrival to the gate,” commercial pilot Chris Cooke told Travel + Leisure. “All that waiting in line during taxi and takeoff counts toward flight time.”

Not surprisingly, saving money is another reason flights take longer today. “Airlines are able to save millions per year by flying slower," reveals a video from Business Insider.

A study which says they are skewing flight times:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/Are-airlines-exaggerating-flight-times-so-theyre-never-late/

Are you being told the truth about flight times?

Passenger jets have never been more advanced. With Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, introduced in 2011, leading the charge, and new models like the 737 MAX and the Airbus A320neo following in its wake, the aircraft on which we travel are safer, smoother, quieter and more fuel efficient than ever.

They also appear perfectly capable of flying faster than their predecessors. Just last month the low-cost carrier Norwegian issued a celebratory press release after one of its 787 Dreamliners whizzed from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York to London Gatwick in five hours and 13 minutes, setting a new transatlantic record for a subsonic plane. That’s three minutes quicker than the previous best time set by British Airways in January 2015.

So why, record-breaking feats notwithstanding, are airlines claiming it takes longer and longer to fly from A to B?

That’s according to research by OAG, the aviation analyst, carried out for Telegraph Travel. It found that over the last couple of decades, despite new technology, scheduled flight times - ie. how long an airline estimates it will take to complete a journey - have actually increased by as much as 50 per cent.

Looking at Europe’s busiest international route, for example - Heathrow to Dublin - it found that in 1996 the vast majority of airlines published a scheduled flight time of between 60 and 74 minutes. Fast forward 22 years and almost all claim the journey takes between 75 and 89 minutes, while a handful bank on 90 minutes or more.

There are two reasons posted flight times are longer than the aircraft are capable of.  One, top speed is not the most efficient.  There is a sweet spot cruising speed with the best fuel economy. 

The other reason is airlines are graded on On Time Arrivals.  Thus they post longer than needed times.  Many times I have been on flights that left late but arrived early.  They pad the times.  That is why most flight time arguments use it as an estimate of distance, not exact.  But its close enough to rough in a map.  I have done it, for free, why don't you?

[TomInAustin]

To mathematically prove the point is tricky, but it's not hard to visualise. If you have a set of distances between cities, it's possible to create a model, using blobs of modelling clay and straws cut to the right length. One can very quickly assemble a rough model. It becomes clear as soon as one puts the model together that one is not free to choose whatever shape one wishes. The distances between cities force one into only one shape. They will not permit a flat map. It cannot work.

It's of course entirely possible for _anyone_ to verify that flight distances as measured on the globe reflect, to a reasonable degree, flight times. This is not some secret mystery that we have to believe because of the Illuminati telling us. We know it because we now have access to air travel for ourselves. We know that the times advertised by the airlines reflect the actual times taken.

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations. There are a number of ways to go. There's variation in the speeds of different aircraft, there are wind patterns, there are delays due to weather - so how can any of this make any sense? It's just too unreliable. The airlines are all in on it - if the truth about the flat Earth were revealed then they'd be ruined. And so on.

Exactly right.  There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity.  One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar.  Tom admitted radar is accurate.     There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds.  The other is the clock.  Time is easily measured.  The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe.  Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts.  Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.

[Westprog]

What is interesting is exactly how the denial works. Clearly, there's no rational way to argue with this overwhelming weight of evidence - so we are left with a variety of irrational rationalisations.

Where it gets silly is when claims are made that planes don't know how fast they're going and that other ways of measuring distances across oceans like ships laying cables across the Atlantic aren't valid either because they don't know how much cable they've used.

Some of the arguments are so obviously spurious that one suspects that they aren't meant to be taken seriously. It's a case where "Well, I know that the Earth is flat, so their argument must have some hole in it - so whatever."

The flight times disprove the flat Earth in an accessible way, which people who won't stand on top of a cliff with binoculars can appreciate. So it's necessary to use a special new set of obfuscations.

[Westprog]

Exactly right.  There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity.  One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar.  Tom admitted radar is accurate.     There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds.  The other is the clock.  Time is easily measured.  The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe.  Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts.  Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.

There's an option that's used when the argument is irrefutable - and it's quite common in the era of fake news. It's to say "Well, we don't know anything really. Who can tell whether flight times are accurate. I mean, we've all been on flights that turned up late, right? And aircraft speeds vary so much, and routes aren't always direct. Just admit it, we can't draw any conclusions until we have more data."

It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...

[iamcpc]

The legend will state the scale of the map, correct. And for small areas (i.e. the size of a state) the scale will be almost constant.

This does not work for larger areas. See below. One line measures the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City, 1046.72 km. The other measures the length of the border between Alaska and Canada, 1,126.51km. The distances measured are roughly the same, you agree?

If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.

[BillO]

If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.

I tried to look this method up and could find nothing.  Would you be able to provide a link or possibly demonstrate?

[edby]

The legend will state the scale of the map, correct. And for small areas (i.e. the size of a state) the scale will be almost constant.

This does not work for larger areas. See below. One line measures the distance between San Antonio and Kansas City, 1046.72 km. The other measures the length of the border between Alaska and Canada, 1,126.51km. The distances measured are roughly the same, you agree?

If you want to know the distance between 2 points on the 2D map you have to zoom in some. The way you are doing it is incorrect.

No it's perfectly correct. I used two separate methods. One is via the formula plus lat long. The other is the distance function on Google maps. San Antonio and Kansas City, = 1046.72 km, border = 1,126.51km. You can also 'zoom in' and it's exactly the same.

Of course the 'pixel distance' is different if you zoom in. But that is a perfect proof that you can't represent these distances correctly on a large area map.

This was well known when they developed the UK ordnance survey map. They had to pretend UK was a cylinder, and do it that way.

[TomInAustin]

Exactly right.  There are 2 points that can't be argued with any sanity.  One is cruise speeds that are calibrated with radar.  Tom admitted radar is accurate.     There is an acceptable range of cruise speeds.  The other is the clock.  Time is easily measured.  The data does not lie and the chart in the op shows what is expected and is actual proof of a globe.  Any argument about the clock or aircraft speed is pure bunk designed to shift the focus away from facts.  Facts that are very inconvenient to the FE mindset.

There's an option that's used when the argument is irrefutable - and it's quite common in the era of fake news. It's to say "Well, we don't know anything really. Who can tell whether flight times are accurate. I mean, we've all been on flights that turned up late, right? And aircraft speeds vary so much, and routes aren't always direct. Just admit it, we can't draw any conclusions until we have more data."

It's worth noting that it's not always the flat Earthers using the invalid arguments. I've seen, both here and in other places, flawed arguments used against the flat Earth and in favour of the globe. It's not that common, but it does happen. It's important to point out the flaws. No point in relying on the FE people to do it. If they had the ability to spot flawed reasoning...

Oh, I agree, one of the better posters here on the RE side was 3d.  He had some amazing threads but his idea of using ping times to various servers to measure distances was very flawed.   That does not invalidate his other arguments but some here tried to make it that way.  I have been called out by RE'ers on a few flawed logic issues.   This place is an amazing thought experiment and forces you to rethink many things you take for granted.  It's also very amusing to see Tom come up with new ways to invalidate facts.